Diagnostic workup for esophageal cancer patients can be improved with checklists and clearer protocols; a comparative study between two tertiary centers in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and complete workup of newly diagnosed esophageal cancer is vital for a timely, individual and high-quality treatment strategy. The aim of this study was to uncover potential delay, inefficiencies and non-contributing investigations in the diagnostic process in two tertiary referral centers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all newly diagnosed esophageal cancer patients referred to or diagnosed in the Amsterdam UMC and Karolinska University Hospital between July 2020 and July 2021. Radiology, pathological assessment and multidisciplinary team meeting reports were reviewed. To assess time interval from diagnosis to treatment, dates of diagnosis, admittance to referral hospital, MDT meeting and start of treatment were collected. RESULTS: In total, 252 esophageal cancer patients were included, 187 were treated with curative intent. Curatively treated patients had a mean age of 66 years, were predominantly male (74.9 %) with an adenocarcinoma (71.1 %). Curatively treated patients had a median time from diagnosis to referral of seven days (IQR:0-11) and of 35 days (IQR:28-45) between diagnosis and start of treatment. Main reasons for the significant (P < 0.001) differences in time between diagnosis and treatment between centers, Amsterdam UMC (39 days) vs Karolinska (27 days), were need for additional diagnostics (47.8 %) and differences in referral routine. Gastroscopy was repeated in 32.2 % of patients, mainly for further anatomical mapping. CONCLUSION: Significant time differences between centers in the path from diagnosis to start treatment can be explained by differences in workup approach, referral routines and MDT meeting regulations. Repeat of gastroscopy can be prevented with clearer endoscopy guidelines.

Effect of a prediction tool and communication skills training on communication of treatment outcomes: a multicenter stepped wedge clinical trial (the SOURCE trial).

Background: For cancer patients to effectively engage in decision making, they require comprehensive and understandable information regarding treatment options and their associated outcomes. We developed an online prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to assist healthcare providers (HCPs) in this complex task. This study aims to assess the impact of this combined intervention (prediction tool and training) on the communication practices of HCPs when discussing treatment options. Methods: We conducted a multicenter intervention trial using a pragmatic stepped wedge design (NCT04232735). Standardized Patient Assessments (simulated consultations) using cases of esophageal and gastric cancer patients, were performed before and after the combined intervention (March 2020 to July 2022). Audio recordings were analyzed using an observational coding scale, rating all utterances of treatment outcome information on the primary outcome-precision of provided outcome information-and on secondary outcomes-such as: personalization, tailoring and use of visualizations. Pre vs. post measurements were compared in order to assess the effect of the intervention. Findings: 31 HCPs of 11 different centers in the Netherlands participated. The tool and training significantly affected the precision of the overall communicated treatment outcome information (p = 0.001, median difference 6.93, IQR (-0.32 to 12.44)). In the curative setting, survival information was significantly more precise after the intervention (p = 0.029). In the palliative setting, information about side effects was more precise (p < 0.001). Interpretation: A prediction tool and communication skills training for HCPs improves the precision of treatment information on outcomes in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such interventions on communication in clinical practice and on patient-reported outcomes. Funding: Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (UVA 2014-7000).

Perfusion assessment by fluorescence time curves in esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction: a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative perfusion assessment with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) may reduce postoperative anastomotic leakage rates after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. This study evaluated quantitative parameters derived from fluorescence time curves to determine a threshold for adequate perfusion and predict postoperative anastomotic complications. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent FA-guided esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction between August 2020 and February 2022. After intravenous bolus injection of 0.05-mg/kg ICG, fluorescence intensity was registered over time by PINPOINT camera (Stryker, USA). Fluorescent angiograms were quantitatively analyzed at a region of interest of 1 cm diameter at the anastomotic site on the conduit using tailor-made software. Extracted fluorescence parameters were both inflow (T0, Tmax, Fmax, slope, Time-to-peak) as outflow parameters (T90% and T80%). Anastomotic complications including anastomotic leakage (AL) and strictures were documented. Fluorescence parameters in patients with AL were compared to those without AL. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients (81 male, 65.7 ± 9.9 years) were included, the majority of whom (88%) underwent an Ivor Lewis procedure. AL occurred in 19% of patients (n = 20/103). Both time to peak as Tmax were significantly longer for the AL group in comparison to the non-AL group (39 s vs. 26 s, p = 0.04 and 65 vs. 51 s, p = 0.03, respectively). Slope was 1.0 (IQR 0.3-2.5) and 1.7 (IQR 1.0-3.0) for the AL and non-AL group (p = 0.11). Outflow was longer in the AL group, although not significantly, T90% 30 versus 15 s, respectively, p = 0.20). Univariate analysis indicated that Tmax might be predictive for AL, although not reaching significance (p = 0.10, area under the curve 0.71) and a cut-off value of 97 s was derived, with a specificity of 92%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated quantitative parameters and identified a fluorescent threshold which could be used for intraoperative decision-making and to identify high-risk patients for anastomotic leakage during esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. A significant predictive value remains to be determined in future studies.

C-Reactive Protein as a Negative Predictive Marker for Anastomotic Leakage After Minimally Invasive Esophageal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is commonly used by surgeons to raise suspicion of anastomotic leakage and other infectious complications, but most studies on optimal cut-off values are retrospective with a small sample of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy and optimal cut-off value of CRP for anastomotic leakage in patients following esophagectomy for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer patients was included in this prospective study. Anastomotic leakage was confirmed if a defect or leakage of oral contrast was seen on a CT scan, by endoscopy or if saliva was draining from the neck incision. Diagnostic accuracy of CRP was assessed by receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis. Youden's index was adopted to determine the cut-off value. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included between 2016 and 2018. Postoperative day 5 showed the highest area under the ROC (0.825) and optimal cut-off value of 120 mg/L. This resulted in a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 82%, negative predicting value of 97%, and positive predicting value of 32%. CONCLUSIONS: CRP on postoperative day 5 can be used as a negative predictor for and can be used as a marker to raise suspicion of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. When CRP exceeds 120 mg/L on postoperative day 5, additional investigations should be considered.

Impact of merging two university hospitals on surgical outcome after esophagogastric and hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: Results from a retrospective study.

Background: Due to centralization and super-specialization in medicine, hospital mergers are increasingly common. Their effect on postoperative outcomes in highly specialized surgical departments is unclear. As quality metrics often worsen after major organizational changes, preservation of quality of care during an hospital merge is of the utmost importance. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a merger of two Dutch university hospitals on quality of surgical care, volume, and timeliness of care. Methods: The upper gastro-intestinal and hepato-biliary-pancreatic sections merged on the 27th of January 2020 and the 31th of May 2021 respectively. Outcomes of all adult surgical patients were compared six months before and six months after the merger. Short-term quality metrics, volume, and timeliness of care were assessed. Results: Overall, a cohort of 631 patients were included of whom 195 were upper gastro-intestinal (97 prior to the merger, 98 after the merger) and 436 (223 prior to the merger, 213 after) hepato-biliary-pancreatic patients. There were no differences in mortality, readmission, number and severity of complications, volume, and timeliness of care six months post-merger as compared to before merger. Conclusion: This study shows that a hospital merger of two university hospitals can be performed without jeopardizing patient safety and while benefitting from centralization of highly specialized care and enhancement of medical research. Key message: This study investigated the impact of a merger of two Dutch university hospitals on quality of care, timeliness of care, and volume. It showed no deterioration in the evaluated short-term quality metrics, volume or timeliness for upper GI and HPB surgery, suggesting that a hospital merger of two university hospitals can be performed safely, while benefitting from centralization of highly specialized care and enhancement of medical research.

The role of fluorescence angiography in colonic interposition after esophagectomy.

Colonic interposition is an alternative for gastric conduit reconstruction after esophagectomy. Anastomotic leakage (AL) occurs in 15-25% of patients and may be attributed to reduced blood supply after vascular ligation. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) can visualize tissue perfusion. We aimed to give an overview of the first experiences of ICG-FA and AL rate in colonic interposition. This study included all consecutive patients who underwent a colonic interposition between January 2015 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center. Surgery was performed for the following indications: inability to use the stomach because of previous surgery or extensive tumour involvement, cancer recurrence in the gastric conduit, or because of complications after initial esophagectomy. Since 2018 ICG-FA was performed before anastomotic reconstruction by administration of ICG injection (0.1 mg/kg/bolus), using the Spy-phi (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI). Twenty-eight patients (9 female, mean age 62.8), underwent colonic interposition of whom 15 (54%) underwent ICG-FA-guided surgery. Within the ICG-FA group, three (20%) AL occurred, whereas in the non-ICG-FA group, three AL and one graft necrosis (31%) occurred (P=0.67). There was a change of management due to the FA assessment in three patients in the FA group (20%) which led to the choice of a different bowel segment for the anastomosis. Mean operative times in the ICG-FA and non-ICG-FA groups were 372±99 and 399±113 minutes, respectively (P=0.85). ICG-FA is a safe, easy and feasible technique to assess perfusion of colonic interpositions. ICG-FA is of added value leading to a change in management in a considerable percentage of patients. Its role in prevention of AL remains to be elucidated.

Clinical variation in the organization of clinical pathways in esophagogastric cancer, a mixed method multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Among esophagogastric cancer patients, the probability of having undergone treatment with curative intent has been shown to vary, depending on the hospital of diagnosis. However, little is known about the factors that contribute to this variation. In this study, we sought to understand the organization of clinical pathways and their association with variation in practice. METHODS: A mixed-method study using quantitative and qualitative data was conducted. Quantitative data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (e.g., outpatient clinic consultations and diagnostic procedures). For qualitative data, thematic content analysis was performed using semi-structured interviews (n = 30), observations of outpatient clinic consultations (n = 26), and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM, n = 16) in eight hospitals, to assess clinicians' perspectives regarding the clinical pathways. RESULTS: Quantitative analyses showed that patients more often underwent surgical consultation prior to the MDTM in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, but more often consulted with a geriatrician in hospitals associated with a low probability of such treatment. The organization of clinical pathways was analyzed quantitatively at three levels: regional, local, and patient levels. At a regional level, hospitals differed in terms of the number of patients discussed during the MDTM. At the local level, the revision of radiological images and restaging after neoadjuvant treatment varied. At the patient level, some hospitals routinely conduct fitness tests, whereas others estimated the patient's physical fitness during an outpatient clinic consultation. Few clinicians performed a standard geriatric consultation in older patients to assess their mental fitness and frailty. CONCLUSION: Surgical consultation prior to MDTM was more often conducted in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, whereas a geriatrician was consulted more often in hospitals associated with a low probability of receiving such treatment.

Effects of surgery and general anaesthesia on sleep-wake timing: CLOCKS observational study.

Surgery and general anaesthesia have the potential to disturb the body's circadian timing system, which may affect postoperative outcomes. Animal studies suggest that anaesthesia could induce diurnal phase shifts, but clinical research is scarce. We hypothesised that surgery and general anaesthesia would result in peri-operative changes in diurnal sleep-wake patterns in patients. In this single-centre prospective cohort study, we recruited patients aged ≥18 years scheduled for elective surgery receiving ≥30 min of general anaesthesia. The Munich Chronotype Questionnaire and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index were used to determine baseline chronotype, sleep characteristics and sleep quality. Peri-operative sleeping patterns were logged. Ninety-four patients with a mean (SD) age of 52 (17) years were included; 56 (60%) were female. The midpoint of sleep (SD) three nights before surgery was 03.33 (55 min) and showed a phase advance of 40 minutes to 02.53 (67 min) the night after surgery (p < 0.001). This correlated with the midpoint of sleep three nights before surgery and was not associated with age, sex, duration of general anaesthesia or intra-operative dexamethasone use. Peri-operatively, patients had lower subjective sleep quality and worse sleep efficiency. Disruption started from one night before surgery and did not normalise until 6 days after surgery. We conclude that there is a peri-operative phase advance in midpoint of sleep, confirming our hypothesis that surgery and general anaesthesia disturb the circadian timing system. Patients had decreased subjective sleep quality, worse sleep efficiency and increased daytime fatigue.

Postoperative Complications and Long-Term Quality of Life After Multimodality Treatment for Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP).

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy has major effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). Postoperative complications might contribute to a decreased HR-QOL. This population-based study aimed to investigate the difference in HR-QoL between patients with and without complications after esophagectomy for cancer. METHODS: A prospective comparative cohort study was performed with data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). All patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer after esophagectomy in the period 2015-2018 were enrolled. The study investigated HR-QoL at baseline, then 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively, comparing patients with and without complications as well as with and without anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The 486 enrolled patients comprised 270 patients with complications and 216 patients without complications. Significantly more patients with complications had comorbidities (69.6% vs 57.3%; p = 0.001). No significant difference in HR-QoL was found over time between the patients with and without complications. In both groups, a significant decline in short-term HR-QoL was found in various HR-QoL domains, which were restored to the baseline level during the 12-month follow-up period. No significant difference was found in HR-QoL between the patients with and without anastomotic leakage. The patients with grades 2 and 3 anastomotic leakage reported significantly more "choking when swallowing" at 6 months (ß = 14.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 24.833 to - 4.202; p = 0.049), 9 months (ß = 22.4, 95% CI, - 34.259 to - 10.591; p = 0.007), and 24 months (ß = 24.6; 95% CI, - 39.494 to - 9.727; p = 0.007) than the patients with grade 1 or no anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION: In general, postoperative complications were not associated with decreased short- or long-term HR-QoL for patients after esophagectomy for esophageal or GEJ cancer. The temporary decrease in HR-QoL likely is related to the nature of esophagectomy and reconstruction itself.

Long-Term Quality of Life Following Transthoracic and Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of transthoracic (TTE) and transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) on long-term health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has been studied with variable results. This study investigates long-term HR-QoL in patients having undergone TTE or THE. METHODS: Disease-free patients after TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer with a follow-up > 2 years were included. Patients who visited the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral center between 2014 and 2018 were asked to complete EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Uni- and multivariable linear regression analysis of HR-QoL was performed in all patients and in subgroups of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients after TTE and 56 after THE were included. When compared with the general population, all patients reported worse HR-QoL in 'role functioning' and 'social functioning' and in a range of disease- and/or treatment-specific symptoms. The only significant difference between TTE and THE was a better HR-QoL score for "hair loss" following TTE (ß = 29.4,95%CI = -49.108 - -9.671, p = 0.016). Subgroup analysis of minimally invasively operated patients showed better scores in "physical functioning" following TTE (ß = 13.8,95%CI = 2.755-24.933, p = 0.030). No significant differences in HR-QoL were found between TTE and THE after neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Long-term HR-QoL is largely comparable in disease-free patients following TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer. If there were differences between the surgical groups, they were in favor of TTE. These findings may aid in preoperative counseling of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.

Quantitative fluorescence-guided perfusion assessment of the gastric conduit to predict anastomotic complications after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence angiography (FA) assesses anastomotic perfusion during esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, but its interpretation is subjective. This study evaluated time to fluorescent enhancement in the gastric conduit, with the aim to determine a threshold to predict postoperative anastomotic complications. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, all consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction from July 2018 to October 2019 were included. FA was performed before anastomotic reconstruction following injection of indocyanine green (ICG). During FA, the following time points were recorded: ICG injection, first fluorescent enhancement in the lung, at the base of the gastric conduit, at the planned anastomotic site, and at ICG watershed or in the tip of the gastric conduit. Anastomotic complications including anastomotic leakage and clinically relevant strictures were documented. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included, the majority (67 out of 84, 80%) of which underwent an Ivor Lewis procedure. After a median follow-up of 297 days, anastomotic leakage was observed in 12 out of 84 (14.3%) and anastomotic stricture in 12 out of 82 (14.6%). Time between ICG injection and enhancement in the tip was predictive for anastomotic leakage (P = 0.174, area under the curve = 0.731), and a cut-off value of 98 seconds was derived (specificity: 98%). All times to enhancement at the planned anastomotic site and ICG watershed were significantly predictive for the occurrence of a stricture, however area under the curves were <0.7. CONCLUSIONS: The identified fluorescent threshold can be used for intraoperative decision making or to identify potentially high-risk patients for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction.

Long-term health-related quality of life after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Both cervical (McKeown) and intrathoracic (Ivor Lewis) anastomosis of transthoracic esophagectomy are surgical procedures that can be performed for distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: Disease-free patients >1 year following a McKeown or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with a two-field lymphadenectomy for a distal or GEJ carcinoma visiting the outpatient clinic between 2014 and 2018 were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. HR-QoL was investigated in both groups. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included after McKeown and 115 after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Median follow-up was 2.4 years (IQR 1.7-3.6). Patients after McKeown esophagectomy reported more problems with 'eating with others' compared to patients after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (mean scores: 49.9 vs. 38.8). This difference was both clinically relevant and significant after correction for multiple testing (ß = 11.1, 95% CI 3.105-19.127, P = 0.042). Patients in both groups reported a poorer HR-QoL (≥10 points) than the general population with respect to nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, appetite loss, financial difficulties, problems with eating, reflux, eating with others, choked when swallowing, trouble with coughing, and weight loss. CONCLUSION: Long-term HR-QoL of disease-free patients following a McKeown or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for a distal or GEJ carcinoma is largely comparable. Irrespective of the surgical technique, patients' HR-QoL following esophagectomy is compromised. When given the choice, patients should be informed that after a McKeown esophagectomy more problems while eating with others can occur.

Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial).

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1-3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0-3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0-3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects. DISCUSSION: In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019.

Conditional survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival accounts for the time already survived after surgery and may be of additional informative value. The aim was to assess conditional survival in patients with oesophageal cancer and to create a nomogram predicting the conditional probability of survival after oesophagectomy. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oesophagectomy between January 2004 and 2019. Conditional survival was defined as the probability of surviving y years after already surviving for x years. The formula used for conditional survival (CS) was: CS(x|y)  = S(x + y) /S(x) , where S(x) represents overall survival at x years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate predictors of overall survival. A nomogram was constructed to predict 5-year survival directly after surgery and given survival for 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after surgery. RESULTS: Some 660 patients were included. Median overall survival was 44·4 (95 per cent c.i. 37·0 to 51·8) months. The probability of achieving 5-year overall survival after resection increased from 45 per cent directly after surgery to 54, 65, 79 and 88 per cent given 1, 2, 3 and 4 years already survived respectively. Cardiac co-morbidity, cN category, ypT category, ypN category, chyle leakage and pulmonary complications were independent predictors of survival. The nomogram predicted 5-year survival using these predictors and number of years already survived. CONCLUSION: The probability of achieving 5-year overall survival after oesophagectomy for cancer increases with each additional year survived. The proposed nomogram predicts survival in patients after oesophagectomy, taking the years already survived into account.

ANTECEDENTES: La supervivencia condicional hace referencia al tiempo ya sobrevivido tras la cirugía y esta información puede tener un valor adicional. El objetivo fue evaluar la supervivencia condicional en pacientes con cáncer de esófago y crear un nomograma para predecir la probabilidad condicional de supervivencia tras una esofaguectomía. MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo incluyó pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de esófago que fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía, entre enero de 2004 a 2019, en el centro médico de la Universidad de Amsterdam (AMC) de los Países Bajos. La supervivencia condicional se definió como la probabilidad de sobrevivir y años tras haber ya sobrevivido ya durante x años. La formula utilizada fue: CS(x|y) =S(x+y) /S(x) , con S(x) representando la supervivencia global a x años. Se utilizaron modelos de riesgo proporcional de Cox para evaluar los predictores de supervivencia global. Se construyó un nomograma para predecir la supervivencia a los 5 años directamente tras la cirugía y dar la supervivencias a 1-, 2-, 3- y 4 años después de la cirugía. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 660 pacientes. La mediana de la supervivencia global fue de 44,4 meses (i.c. del 95% 37,0-51,8). La probabilidad de conseguir una supervivencia global a los 5 años tras la resección aumentó del 45% directamente después de la cirugía al 54%, 65%, 79% y 88% por cada año adicional sobrevivido. La comorbilidad cardiaca, estadio cN, estadio ypT, estadio ypN, quilotórax y complicaciones pulmonares fueron predictores independientes de supervivencia. El nomograma predijo la supervivencia a 5 años utilizando estos predictores y número de años ya sobrevividos. CONCLUSIÓN: La probabilidad de alcanzar una supervivencia global a los 5 años tras una esofaguectomía por cáncer aumenta por cada año adicional sobrevivido. El nomograma propuesto predice la supervivencia en pacientes después de una esofaguectomía, teniendo en cuenta los años ya sobrevividos.

Long-Term Quality of Life After Total Gastrectomy Versus Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence on whether a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is preferred for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers regarding effects on morbidity, pathology, survival and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in long-term HR-QoL in patients undergoing total gastrectomy versus Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: Patients with a follow-up of >1 year after a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for GEJ/cardia carcinoma completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. 'Problems with eating,' 'reflux,' and 'nausea and vomiting' were the primary HR-QoL endpoints. The secondary endpoints were the remaining HR-QoL domains, postoperative complications and pathology results. RESULTS: Thirty patients after gastrectomy and 71 after esophagectomy were included. Mean age was 63 years. Median follow-up was 2 years (range 12-84 months). Patients after gastrectomy reported less 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' (ß = - 5.952, 95% CI - 9.437 to - 2.466; ß = - 13.084, 95% CI - 18.525 to - 7.643). More lymph nodes were resected in esophagectomy group (p = 0.008). No difference was found in number of positive lymph nodes, R0 resection or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: After a follow-up of >1 year 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' were less common after a total gastrectomy. No differences were found in postoperative complications or radicality of surgery. Based on this study, no general preference can be given to either of the procedures for GEJ cancer. These results support shared decision making when a choice between the two treatment options is possible.

Nationwide Outcome of Gastrectomy with En-Bloc Partial Pancreatectomy for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gastrectomies with partial pancreatectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent gastrectomy with or without partial pancreatectomy for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer between 2011 and 2015 were selected from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). Outcomes were resection margin (pR0) and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III postoperative complications and survival. The association between partial pancreatectomy and postoperative complications was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival of patients with partial pancreatectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 1966 patients that underwent gastrectomy, 55 patients (2.8%) underwent en-bloc partial pancreatectomy. A pR0 resection was achieved in 45 of 55 patients (82% versus 85% in the group without additional resection, P = 0.82). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications occurred in 21 of 55 patients (38% versus 17%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival [95% confidence interval] was 15 [6.8-23.2] months. For patients with and without perioperative systemic therapy, median survival was 20 [12.3-27.7] and 10 [5.7-14.3] months, and for patients with pR0 and pR1 resection, it was 20 [11.8-28.3] and 5 [2.4-7.6] months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrectomy with partial pancreatectomy is not only associated with a pR0 resection rate of 82% but also with increased postoperative morbidity. It should only be performed if a pR0 resection is feasible.

Gastric emptying and quality of life after pancreatoduodenectomy with retrocolic or antecolic gastroenteric anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a major problem after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). A recent multicentre randomized trial reported no difference in gastric emptying rates between retrocolic and antecolic reconstruction routes. The present study looked at quality of life with these two approaches and the correlation with gastric emptying. METHODS: This was a substudy of patients completing a panel of quality-of-life questionnaires within a randomized trial comparing retrocolic and antecolic gastroenteric reconstruction after PD. Gastric emptying was assessed by scintigraphy 1 week after surgery. Quality of life was measured with the EuroQoL - 5D questionnaire (EQ-5D), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) with its pancreatic cancer module (PAN26), and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). RESULTS: There were 38 patients in the retrocolic and 35 in the antecolic group. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were similar in the two groups. Median time to half-emptying of stomach content after surgery was 145 and 64 min in the retrocolic and antecolic group respectively (P = 0.189). Median percentages of residual activity after 2 h were 64 and 28 per cent respectively (P = 0.213). Quality of life did not differ at any time point between the groups. At 2 weeks after surgery, patients with DGE had significantly worse outcomes on two EQ-5D domains, ten QLQ-C30/PAN26 subscales, and two GIQLI subscales and total score. Effect sizes were moderate to large. CONCLUSION: The route of gastroenteric reconstruction after PD does not influence either gastric emptying at scintigraphy or quality of life. The impact of DGE on quality of life is clinically significant. Registration number NTR1697 (www.trialregister.nl).

Non-radical resection versus bypass procedure for pancreatic cancer - a consecutive series and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Most survival studies comparing non-radical resections to bypass surgery in patients with pancreatic cancer often do not differentiate between an R1 and R2 resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether non-radical R1 and R2 resections have better postoperative outcomes and survival compared to a palliative bypass. METHODS: A single center cohort study was performed analyzing mortality, morbidity and 1-year survival after R1 (tumor cells within 1 mm from the circumferential margin), R2 and bypass surgery in patients with pancreatic cancer. For the systematic review, studies were identified comparing R1 or R2 resections with bypass, in patients with pancreatic cancer. Postoperative outcomes were compared including the cohort study. RESULTS: The cohort study (n=405) showed higher morbidity rates after R1 (n=191) and R2 (n=11) resections compared to bypass (52% and 73% vs. 34%, p < 0.01). In-hospital mortality did not differ (overall 1.7%). 1-year survival rates were 71%, 46% and 32% after R1, R2 resection and bypass (p=0.6 between R2 and bypass). The systematic review identified 8 studies, after including the cohort study 1535 patients were analyzed. Increased morbidity after R1-R2 resection (48%) compared to bypass (30-34%) was found. Median survival was 14-18 months after R1 resection vs. 9-13 months after bypass and 8.5-11.5 months after R2 resection vs. 7.5-10.7 months after bypass. CONCLUSION: An R2 resection should be avoided in patients with pancreatic cancer due to its poor prognosis. Survival benefit after an R1 resection, as compared to bypass surgery, justifies a resection despite the increased morbidity rate.

Pancreatoduodenectomy associated complications influence cancer recurrence and time interval to death.

BACKGROUND: Resection is the only life-prolonging option for pancreatic or periampullary cancer. Cell-mediated immunity might reduce progression of metastasis or local recurrence likelihood, but surgery associated morbidity can suppress this immunity. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of complications on cancer specific survival after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. METHOD: 517 consecutive patients who underwent PD for pancreatic or periampullary adenocarcinoma were analysed. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 24 (14-44) months, 377 (73%) patients had died from progressive disease, 140 (27%) were alive. Median survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 22 (18-25) months following an uncomplicated postoperative course versus 16 (13-19) months for patients with major surgical complications (p = 0.021). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that microscopically residual disease (R1), complications, and adjuvant therapy were independent factors for recurrence. Within the R1 group, survival for patients with complications was even more limited, 9.7 (8.3-11.0) versus 18.7 (15.0-22.5) for those without (p < 0.001). For patients with R1 resection complications was the only independent predictor for a shorter time interval to death (hazard ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.16-3.30). Complications did not influence survival of patients with periampullary adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Complications after resection are independently related to an impaired survival following PD for pancreatic, but not periampullary cancer. The effect is even more dramatic in patients who had an R1 resection. Although the relation is not causal per se, the findings support the hypothesis of a complication-induced, compromised immunity rendering patients more susceptible for recurrent disease.